Obama’s Christmas Gift to ISIS and Al Qaeda

obama-1-419x350Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec.9, 2014:

Everyone likes presents; even murderous Muslim terrorists.

That must be why Obama decided to give ISIS, Hamas and Al Qaeda an early Christmas present by freeing their followers from Guantanamo Bay and dispatching them to Uruguay.

Why Uruguay? It’s one of several South American countries run by Marxist terrorists.

Uruguayan President Jose Mujica, a former Marxist terrorist, already offered to take in Syrian refugees and a number of the freed Gitmo Jihadists are Syrians who trained under the future leader of what would become ISIS. If they stay on in Uruguay, they can try to finish the job of killing the Syrian refugees resettled there. If they don’t, they can just join ISIS and kill Christian and Yazidi refugees back in Syria.

It’s a win-win situation for ISIS and Marxist terrorists; less so for their victims.

Most of the Guantanamo detainees freed by Obama were rated as presenting a high risk to America and our allies. They include a bomb maker, a trained suicide bomber, a document forger and a terrorist who had received training in everything up to RPGs and mortars.

The only thing Obama left out was the partridge in the pear tree. It probably wasn’t Halal.

These terrorists aren’t about to settle down in a country best known for its agricultural sector. There is no major demand for bomb makers to herd sheep or suicide bombers to milk cows.

Obama’s Christmas gift to Islamic terrorists includes Mohammed Tahanmatan, a Hamas terrorist who told American personnel at Gitmo that he “hates all enemies of Islam, including Americans, Jews, Christians and Muslims who do not think as he does.”

Uruguay is filled with these enemies of Islam, but so is the rest of the world. There’s no telling where Mohammed Tahanmatan will take his Jihad against Americans, Christians and Jews; he might go back to Israel or head over to Syria. Or he might just go back to Afghanistan and Pakistan to kill the American soldiers still left there.

Either way the blood of his victims will be on Obama’s hands.

And yet Mohammed Tahanmatan is the least dangerous of the terrorists freed by Barack Obama.

Ahmed Adnan Ahjam, Abd al Hadi Omar Mahmoud Faraj, Ali Husain Shaabaan and Jihad Ahmed Diyab were members of the Syrian Group which left an Assad crackdown to join Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Syrian Group was headed by Abu Musab al-Suri, a key ideological figure in international Jihadist circles, who was linked to multiple bombings in Europe, including one that wounded American soldiers.

The Damascus Cell of the Syrian Group was run by the uncle of Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi who also sat on AQIQ’s advisory council. Al Qaeda in Iraq is known today as ISIS.

Even while Obama bombs ISIS in Syria and Iraq, he releases experienced ISIS recruits from Gitmo.

Ahmed Adnan Ahjam was listed as receiving advanced training from Al Qaeda in the use of a wide range of battlefield weapons up to artillery. He will be invaluable to ISIS in its campaign in Kobani.

Obama’s present of Ahjam to ISIS will aid in genocide against the Kurds of Kobani. Ahjam was rated a “high risk” and should never have been released.

Abd al Hadi Omar Mahmoud Faraj received training at a camp run by Zarqawi providing him with an even more direct link to ISIS. He is a trained suicide bomber. ISIS will make use of him to train suicide bombers including its growing army of brainwashed and abused child soldiers.

Faraj was rated “high risk”. He should never have been released.

Ali Husain Shaabaan also trained at a Zarqawi camp. He was listed as “high risk”. Like Farj and Ahjam, there is little doubt that he will be in Syria before too long.

Jihad Ahmed Diyab is a document forger who provided documents to the Jihadist network of Abu Zubaydah linked to the bombing plot against Los Angeles International Airport, he worked with Zarqawi and associated with 9/11 terrorist recruiter Mohammed Zammar.

Jihad Diyab was not only listed as being “high risk”, but also as being of high intelligence value. He has connections to multiple Islamic terrorist groups around the world. That makes Jihad potentially the most valuable member of the Syrian Group to be released by Obama in his Christmas gift to ISIS.

ISIS will find Jihad Diyab useful for providing forged documents to smuggle its fighters into Syria and also to potentially move terrorists into Europe and America.

And yet giving this gift of Jihad to ISIS may pale next to Abdul Bin Mohammed Abis Ourgy, the final Gitmo Jihadist, who not only has many links to Muslim terrorist groups, but is a bomb maker who also trained terrorists in his explosive arts. The United States suspected that he may have even known beforehand about 9/11.

Ourgy is likely to head for North Africa and his ability to move money around will help strengthen the operations of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda linked groups in the area. His bomb making skills will be used to train the next generation of terrorists. The blood of those they kill will be on Obama’s hands.

It goes without saying that Ourgy was listed as “high risk” and that releasing a bomb maker who will train other terrorists to build bombs is about as irresponsible as it gets.

Obama didn’t just free six more Gitmo detainees. He dumped “high risk” Jihadists with skills that make them extremely useful to ISIS and extremely dangerous to us into a country run by a former terrorist.

These terrorists are not just Al Qaeda, but the majority of them have personal links to Syria and to the network of what has become ISIS.

“We’ve offered our hospitality for human beings who have suffered a terrible kidnapping in Guantanamo,” President Jose Mujica has said, making it clear once again where his sympathies lie.

The former Marxist terrorist predictably sympathizes with the terrorists, not the terrorized. Obama might as well have given the new ISIS recruits a plane ticket directly to Istanbul. The only difference between doing that and doing what he did is plausible deniability.

As soon as the money gets wired to them from Saudi Arabia or Qatar, they’ll be at Carrasco International Airport. After a plane trip from there to Buenos Aires to Istanbul, the rest will be a jaunt across the border with a wink and a nod from friendly Turkish border guards happy that ISIS is committing the genocide that their prospective position in the European Union won’t allow them to openly carry out.

Of the terrorists released from Gitmo, 100 were confirmed as having returned to terrorism. Thanks to Obama’s Christmas present to Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS, that number is about to go up.

Also see:

ISIS’s Stay-at-Home Radicals

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News,  
December 9, 2014

1101Across Europe and America, governments and intelligence officials are struggling to address the problem of Western Muslims who join the jihad in Syria – and then come back home again. But in the process, they may be missing the bigger threat: the ones who never left.

Counterterrorism experts agree that the danger posed by returning jihadists is significant: already radicalized before they joined groups like the Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State (IS or ISIS), they are now well-trained in the practice of terrorist warfare. Unlike most Westerners, they have overcome any discomfort they may have previously felt about killing or confronting death. Chances are, they’ve already done it.

And their numbers are increasing: already an estimated 3,000 westerners have made the move to join the Islamic State and similar terrorist groups. Hence many countries, including the Netherlands and England, have determined to revoke the passports of any Syrian fighter known to carry dual nationality (many second-generation Turkish and Moroccan immigrants carry passports from their family’s land of origin. Similar bills have also been proposed in the U.S., such as one put forward by U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. The UK has also considered confiscating the passports of all British citizens who join the jihad, but such measures have been rejected on the basis of concerns about leaving individuals stateless.

But now some experts – and returning jihadists – say ISIS “sleeper cells” are already embedded in the West. So-called “Jihadi Hunter” Dimitri Bontinck told the UK’s Mail Online last month that “influential sources” had informed him of such cells, and warned that they were “preparing to unleash their war on Europe.” And an ISIS defector reportedly told a Scandinavian broadcaster of similar sleeper cells in Sweden which were, he said, “awaiting orders.”

The presence of these cells should not come as much of a surprise. More surprising is that Europe’s intelligence agencies hadn’t spotted them earlier. In part, this could be blamed on the intense focus on dealing with returnees, a problem that has left some intelligence and law enforcement agencies stretched thin: in June, for instance, Dutch intelligence agency AIVD admitted it “could no longer keep up” with the jihadists in the Netherlands. By October they were forced to bring in police teams to assist, especially in following the 40 or so jihadists who had returned. (An estimated 130 Dutch, including both returnees and those killed, have joined the Syrian fight.)

But if the AIVD and other intelligence agencies can barely follow the ones they know, this leaves countless other radicalized Muslims in Europe easy prey for Islamic State recruiters, who have already turned Europe’s efforts to block returnees to their advantage. With videos online and with extraordinary social media prowess, IS agents are increasingly encouraging Western supporters to work from home: spread the word, motivate others to make the trip (known as “making Hijrah”), or prepare to attack the infidel on Western soil.

And attack they have, as in the beheading of Fusilier Lee Rigby on a London street in 2013, the killing of a Canadian soldier, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, in Ottawa on Oct. 22, and the hatchet attack on NYPD officers in Queens, N.Y. only two days later. Other assaults have been thwarted, such as the alleged plot by three British men who, prosecutors say, were inspired by ISIS calls for attacks on unbelievers. The men were arrested Nov. 6 in London on charges of planning to behead civilians.

But ISIS’s propaganda has been successful in other ways. Recruiting for jihad is on the rise in the Netherlands, according to a recent AIVD report, which further notes that “the number of Dutch jihadists traveling to Syria to join the conflict there has increased substantially since late 2012.” And overall support for the terrorist group is growing even faster – as thousands made clear during pro-ISIS demonstrations last summer. “Several thousand” people in the Netherlands alone support IS, the AIVD claims, while another recent Dutch report concluded that nearly 90 percent of Dutch Turkish youth considered IS members “heroes.” (That latter report has since come under fire, but its researchers stand by their findings.)

In Germany, ISIS support has grown so threatening that in September, the government passed a law to ban it outright. That legislation includes “a ban on activities that support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, including any displays of its black flag, as part of an effort to suppress the extremist group’s propaganda and recruitment work among Germans,” the New York Times reported. On Dec. 5, officials used the law to close a Bremen mosque; sermons there allegedly encouraged young Muslims to make Hijrah – to migrate – and join in the jihad.

In France, where an estimated 700 people have made Hijrah – the highest number in Europe – an ICM poll conducted last summer for Russian news agency Rosslya Segodnya found that one in six people support ISIS. Among those aged 18-24 – the age of most of the country’s Muslim population –27 percent indicated a “positive opinion” of the terrorist group.

These are not just mathematical figures. They represent people: tens of thousands of young men and women. In fact, the Guardian observes, an analysis by Italian academics of more than 2 million Arabic-language posts online found that “support for Islamic State among Arabic-speaking social media users in Belgium, Britain, France and the US is greater than in the militant group’s heartlands of Syria and Iraq.”

Why?

This is exactly the question Rotterdam Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb –a Muslim of Moroccan origin – is asking. Despite his own hard stance against Islamic radicalization, the number of youths in Rotterdam suspected of radicalizing has increased by 50 percent over the past year. While attending the trial of one suspected jihadist, Dutch daily AD reports, Aboutaleb wondered aloud “why such youths, well-educated and full of promise commit themselves to the jihad.”

“The question is,” he is quoted as saying, “who are the people who go? Why do they make this step? Because they feel discriminated? Because they’re unemployed? Rejected by society? I don’t get that. Doubtless, that would maybe push someone over the edge, but there have to be other arguments that play a role.”

Ultimately, these are the questions everyone should be asking – intelligence and law enforcement agencies most of all. Because as the number of Western jihadists rises, and the support for ISIS grows, one thing is becoming clear: that until we have the answers to the basic queries, nothing else we do will matter.

ISIS TWITTER ACCTS CLAIM THEY HAVE WEAPONIZED STOLEN URANIUM, CREATED ‘DIRTY BOMB’

ISIS-gunman-in-plaza-reutersBreitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL:

Islamic State terrorists are now claiming on social media that they have a “dirty bomb” in their possession. ISIS-affiliated users initially professed the information on Twitter, and added they had stolen 40 kg of Uranium from Mosul University after the city was overtaken by the jihadis in June.

UK’s Mirror reported that an ISIS supporter revealed the terror group had already weaponized the Uranium and turned it into a “dirty bomb.”

“O by the way Islamic State does have a Dirty bomb. We found Radioactive [sic] material from Mosul university,” said the tweet by Islamic State militant who called himself Muslim al-Britani. “We’ll find out what dirty bombs are and what they do. We’ll also discuss what might happen if one actually went off in a public area.”

He added, threateningly, “This sort of bomb would be terribly destructive if went off in LONDON becuz it would be more of a disruptive than a destructive weapon.”

The man responsible for the Twitter post reportedly fled Britain in 2012 after posting bail on terrorism charges. He is believed to be in Syria fighting for the Islamic State.

Iraq’s UN Ambassador said in July that the nuclear material had been stolen from the Mosul University, which led UN Sec-General Ban Ki-moon to warn the substances “can be used in manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.

“These nuclear materials, despite the limited amounts mentioned, can enable terrorist groups, with the availability of the required expertise, to use it separate or in combination with other materials in its terrorist acts,” said Mohamed Ali Alhakim, the UN’s Ambassador to Iraq.

Also see:

AN AMERICAN INFIDEL IN ABU DHABI

Screen-Shot-2014-12-04-at-104709-AMpngBreitbart, by DR. PHYLLIS CHESLER:

On December 1st, a figure in a black burqa, armed with an eight-inch knife, entered the upscale Boutik shopping mall located in Reem Island, the neighborhood where most of Abu Dhabi’s 40,000 expatriates live.

The black burqa’ed figure waited for more than an hour in a woman’s toilet—then stabbed the first white blonde infidel American woman who came in to use the facilities six times until she was dead. Then, with the possible help of two other women, the mysterious black burqa’ed figure either smoothly and calmly walked away, or did so in a frenzied fashion (there are conflicting eye witness reports about this). In any event, the killer entered an elevator and disappeared.

 

The victim’s name was Ibolya Ryan. She was a Hungarian-born and Romanian-raised kindergarten teacher and the divorced mother of two 11 year-old twin boys, Adam and Aiden.  Her former husband lives in Colorado. Ryan had described herself in an online profile for a teacher-recruiting company as “Romanian born” and someone who has worked “in four countries over the last 15 years.” Ryan wanted to “experience the Arab world…their culture and daily life.”

Tragically, she has done just that. At a time of fierce Islamic fundamentalist Jihad, Ibolya, a civilian, may have been targeted by Jihadists. On October 29, 2014, the Embassy of the United States Abu Dhabi UAE posted a “message” for U.S. Citizens, especially “Teachers at International Schools.” An anonymous posting on a Jihadist site, which encouraged “attacks against teachers at American and other international schools in the Middle East,” prompted the Embassy to issue a “security warning.” This included the following:

Avoid crowds or large gatherings when traveling in public; Identify safe areas (for example police stations, hospitals) in your area and how to get to them quickly; Tell co-workers or neighbors where you are going and when you intend to return; Minimize your profile while in public; Always carry a cellphone…; Be prepared to postpone or cancel activities for personal safety concerns.

In other words: Live vigilantly, live fearfully, live indoors as much as possible and have as little contact with strangers, especially with Arab Muslim strangers, as possible.

This is no way to live. But that is the point of such terrorist intimidation– namely, to make life unlivable, unbearable, so that the infidel will either convert to Jihadic Islamism or leave Muslim lands.

On the other hand, the UAE is a strong ally of the United States. Every state in the United States exports to the UAE and more than 1000 American firms have an on-the-ground presence. Strategic American and UAE alliances exist in terms of oil, medical, and military equipment and personnel—but most important, perhaps, is the fact that the UAE “was the first country to support the United States at the advent of Desert Storm; the only Arab country to participate with the US in five coalition actions over the last 20 years: Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Bosnia-Kosovo, and the First Gulf War.”

More importantly, the UAE supports and enforces UN sanctions to contain Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities and, since mid-September of this year, “the UAE has flown dozens of missions against ISIL targets.”

The murder of Ibolya Ryan might also have been a targeted message to the governments of both the UAE and the United States, one that hoped to destroy their relationship in terms of the ongoing joint fight against the most barbaric forms of Islamic fundamentalism.

Jihadists wish to intimidate Americans abroad in Muslim countries so that they move back to America. But Jihadists also wish to punish any individual Muslim or Muslim country for daring to work with infidels against Islamic fundamentalists. How this intimidation is handled, both by individuals and by governments, is bound to affect the course of the war between civilization and barbarism.

Also see:

White House Label of Brotherhood as Non-Violent Patently False

Christian Copts protest the killing of their brethren by Muslim Brotherhood supporters after former President Mohammed Morsi took over office in Egypt. Morsi represented the Brotherhood's "Freedom and Justice" party. (Photo: © Reuters)

Christian Copts protest the killing of their brethren by Muslim Brotherhood supporters after former President Mohammed Morsi took over office in Egypt. Morsi represented the Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice” party. (Photo: © Reuters)

Facts prove the Brotherhood’s violent history. The White House itself has condemned the organization’s calls to violence.

By Ryan Mauro:

The White House has rejected a request to label the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, describing the group as non-violent. The statement is not only at odds with known facts; it’s at odds with statements made by the White House only one year ago.

The White House statement came in response to a petition with 200,000 signatures citing the Brotherhood’s history of violence and how its preachers, particularly Sayyid Qutb, have bred multitudes of terrorists. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recently banned the Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

“We have not seen credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence,” the White House said.

Yet, on July 8, 2013, the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “We also condemn the explicit calls to violence made by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The Alleged Brotherhood Rejection of Violence

Firstly, the White House and many Western officials are misinterpreting an alleged repudiation of violence by the Muslim Brotherhood after the execution of Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb in 1966.

The reason for the use of the word “alleged” is because there is no Muslim Brotherhood manifesto of unequivocal non-violence anywhere to be found. For all the talk of this momentous change, the Brotherhood has never produced  an authoritative declaration explaining this supposed ideological moderation.

The only cited text is a book with a translated title of “Preachers, Not Judges” or “Missionaries, Not Judges.” Sources differ as to whether it was published in 1969 or 1977, and it is said to have been written by the Muslim Brotherhood’s General Guide, Hasan al-Hudaybi, as he sat in an Egyptian prison.

The book is marked as the “moment” the Brotherhood transformed from a militant group to a non-violent educational group. It is often described as a formal rebuttal to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb.

However, top experts have concluded that the text was not even written by Al-Hudaybi, nor is there any evidence that it was written or endorsed by the Brotherhood.

One such expert is Dr. Barbara Zollner, Director of Islamic Studies at Birbeck College, University of London. Zollner wrote her doctoral thesis on the text; she also wrote a book about Al-Hudaybi.

“Overall, my argument is that Preachers, Not Judges was not written by Hassan al-Hudaybi, and secondly, it is not written as a response to Sayyid Qutb,” she says.

Zollner theorizes that the book is a product of the Egyptian government and Al-Azhar University based on the accounts of Egyptian officials and Brotherhood leaders at the time.

In fact, the book doesn’t even mention Qutb or call on Muslims to discard his preaching. Far from casting Qutb aside, the Brotherhood still exalts him and hasn’t lifted a finger to promote this alleged Al-Hudaybi text. Al-Hudaybi himself never promoted it.

On the contrary. “Qutb’s Signposts remains a standard part of the organization’s introductory membership curriculum … while Preachers, Not Judges has not been reprinted in Egypt for more than three decades and hasn’t appeared in print anywhere in the Arabic world since 1985,” explains Patrick Poole.

If this book were so seminal, the Brotherhood would at least have translated it into English and disseminated it. But, it has not, even though the Brotherhood has a frequently updated English-language website and Twitter handle.

One thing the book does is to rebut the Muslim doctrine of takfirism, a practice where Muslims declare another Muslim as an apostate without a trial or proof of treason. As can be seen historically and today, Takfirism leads to Muslim-on-Muslim violence because it enables Muslim extremists to unilaterally judge a co-religionist’s faith and essentially sentence him or her to death.

The Brotherhood and its apologists will counter that this analysis is proof that the Brotherhood proclaims non-violence today.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is committed to peaceful opposition action. It rejects all forms of violence,” it said in September.

The context of this quote is important. It was said by the Foreign Affairs Secretary of the Brotherhood’s political wing in Egypt, the Freedom and Justice Party, about  Egypt and only about Egypt.

A “Non-Violent” Group That Supports Violence Outside of Egypt

Western governments fail to understand that this stance is limited only to Egypt and is in accordance with the Brotherhood doctrine of “gradualism;” a pragmatic strategy of incremental change during periods of weakness.

Contrary to the White House’s statement, the Brotherhood does notrule out violence or terrorism entirely. In fact, it actively encourages violence in places outside of Egypt.

Tellingly, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, Hamas, is officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States.

Hamas’ charter states in Part 1, Article 2 that it is “one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era.”

In 2006, senior Brotherhood leader Essam El-Erian said, “Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

In 2011, Hamas officially changed its name to include, “a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood—Palestine.” The following year, a video appeared showing Hamas leaders, including Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, declaring allegiance to the Brotherhood and specifically to its jihad.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood have never denied their affiliation, nor have they ever condemned each other or severed ties. It is an indisputable affiliation. Former Egyptian President Morsi was actually the main liaison between Hamas and the Egyptian Brotherhood before getting into power.

The Muslim Brotherhood overtly endorses the violent destruction of Israel, suicide bombings and terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. This fact also has never been disputed by the Brotherhood.

These facts not only discredit the White House’s position that the Brotherhood is non-violent, they discredits the White House’s position that the Brotherhood is not a terrorist group.

Read more at Clarion Project

Is Erdogan’s Turkey an Emerging State Sponsor of Terrorism?

Vice President Joe Biden and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Istanbul, Turkey, November 22, 2014 Source:  AP Emrah Gurel

Vice President Joe Biden and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Istanbul, Turkey, November 22, 2014
Source: AP Emrah Gurel

By Jerry Gordon and Mike Bates:

On November 22, 2014, Vice President Biden met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Istanbul. The agenda was ‘consultation’ with this alleged “valued ally” of the Administration. To ease the conversation, Biden announced at a joint press conference $135 million in aid for Syrian refugees in Turkey. It all had to do with Erdogan’s opposition to the US led coalition fight against the Islamic State, formerly ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. According to a report in Defense News, the meeting did not go well:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday slammed US “impertinence” on the Syrian conflict, exposing the extent of strains between Washington and Ankara days after his key meeting with US Vice President Joe Biden.

Ties between the US and Turkey have soured in recent months over the reluctance of Turkish leaders to intervene militarily in the US-led campaign against the Islamic State jihadists, who have taken control of swathes of Iraq and Syria.

That meant relations between President Obama and President Erdogan have seriously deteriorated from the May 16, 2013 White House Rose Garden joint press conference. They were seeking to topple Syrian strongman Assad engaged in a civil war against opposition groups with hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. There was more than ample indication that Erdogan was playing a double game against the Syrian Kurds in support of ISIS. Turkey appeared to be emerging as the second state sponsor of terrorism across the Middle East, after Iran. That was reflected in a recent Business Insider, headline story, The US Is On A Collision Course With An ‘Absolutely Indispensable’ Ally. Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, Vice President of Research at the Washington, DC-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies was cited in the Business Insider article saying:

The American Foreign Policy with Syria has been feckless while Turkey has been reckless. They have become one of the top sponsors or enablers of ISIS and this should be cause for serious concern.

The Administration has been thwarted in its objective of “degrading and destroying” the Salafist Jihadist Islamic State that has torn through Syria and Iraq leaving death and destruction in the wake of its blitzkrieg. It has become the second wealthiest terrorist group after Hamas in the Middle East. Erdogan permitted a small contingent of Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga to enter Kobani from the Turkish side of the border.Together with US led air strikes that may have temporarily set back ISIS forces ranged against this Syrian Kurdish bastion. Nearly 180,000 Syrian Kurds had fled Kobani for sanctuary in the Turkish border town of Suruc. The world media was consternated by this NATO member with the largest ground force equipped with US tanks and aircraft not joining the fray. Erdogan’s justification for stiff arming the Obama White House ISIS strategy was that the Assad regime’s oppression of its own citizens needed to be addressed.

The realities are that this Sunni supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood has turned the Southeastern frontier into a major center of terrorist finance for ISIS and Al Qaeda opposition groups in Syria. It is aiding funding of ISIS with sales of captured oil and even plundered antiquities. It has provided a veritable Jihadist highway for thousands of foreign fighters to enter the combat zone. They have even extended facilities for care of wounded ISIS fighters in Turkish hospitals. In late September 2014, they exchanged 180 foreign jihadists for return of 49 Turkish diplomats and their family members trapped in the Iraqi city of Mosul when ISIS captured it from fleeing national security forces on June 10, 2014.

That is not the only example of Erdogan’s support of terrorism. On November 27, 2014, Israel’s Shin Bet announced that it foiled a plot by 30 Hamas operatives on the West Bank. The Times of Israel reported:

The Shin Bet announcement said Israel had arrested dozens of members of a Hamas terror network operating throughout the West Bank. The network, Palestinian officials said, was funded and directed by Hamas officials in Turkey who have set up a de facto command center in [that] country.

More than 30 Hamas operatives were arrested during the month of September, the Shin Bet said Thursday. The majority were recruited while studying in Jordan and trained in either Syria or the Gaza Strip, which they entered via tunnels from Sinai.

The Shin Bet said the ring was preparing to kidnap Israelis in Israel and abroad, enter Israeli villages, detonate car bombs, perpetrate roadside attacks, and execute a major terror attack in Teddy Stadium, where the Israeli soccer team Beitar Jerusalem plays its home games.

The Shin Bet asserted that the plan was evidence of an “indefatigable” desire on Hamas’ part to rehabilitate its terror infrastructure in the West Bank and to tug Israel into a sharp military response, which might indirectly lead to the toppling of PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ regime, which is “one of Hamas’ goals.”

The admitted mastermind for this failed operation is Saleh al-Arouri who has been based in Turkey since 2010. He had founded the Hamas Qassem Brigade on the West Bank. Al-Arouri claimed in August, 2014 responsibility for  the operation by two Hamas terrorists masquerading as Orthodox Jews who murdered three young Jewish yeshiva students near Hebron on June 12, 2014. Israeli security and IDF launched a massive man hunt that recovered  their remains on June 30th.  Hamas began a rocket campaign. On July 8th the IDF launched the 50 day Operation Defensive Edge against the rocket and terror tunnel war from Gaza against Israel.

We had written extensively about the corruption of the Erdogan premiership in 2013 and early 2014, noting a $13 billion illicit gold trade for gas with Iran, thus enabling the evasion of US, EU and UN sanctions against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear development program.

On November 24, 2014 the P5+1 and Iran announced a seven month extension to June 2015 endeavoring to conclude a seemingly unattainable agreement. This in the face of continued implacable demands by Iran to lift sanctions while refusing to comply with disclosures requests from UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. One expert called this “an unmitigated disaster.” This has raised the prospects that bi-partisan members of the US Congress would likely pass new stronger sanctions that the Administration opposes. Meanwhile the clock is ticking on Iran achieving nuclear breakout. Many consider that an overarching threat to both regional and world nuclear non proliferation.

Against this background we convened another 1330amWEBY wide-ranging Middle East Round Table discussion with Dr. Jonathan Schanzer of FDD.

Read more at NER

Is CAIR a Terror Group?

UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan explains why his government considers CAIR to be terrorist.

UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan explains why his government considers CAIR to be terrorist.

By Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
November 28, 2014

We who follow the Islamist movement fell off our collective chair on Nov. 15 when the news came that the United Arab Emirates’ ministerial cabinet had listed the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as one of 83 proscribed terrorist organizations, up there with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

This came as a surprise because the UAE authorities themselves have a record of promoting Islamism; because CAIR has a history of raising funds in the UAE; and because the UAE embassy in Washington had previously praised CAIR.

On reflection, however, the listing makes sense for, in recent years, the Islamist movement hasgravely fractured. Sunnis fight Shi’is; advocates of violence struggle against those working within the system; modernizers do battle against those trying to return to the seventh century; and monarchists confront republicans.

This last divide concerns us here. After decades of working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its related institutions, the Persian Gulf monarchies (with the single, striking exception of Qatar) have come to see the MB complex of institutions as a threat to their existence. The Saudi, Emirati, Kuwaiti, and Bahraini rulers now view politicians like Mohamed Morsi of Egypt as their enemies, as they do Hamas and its progeny – including CAIR.

While the Gulf monarchs have not become any less Islamist, they have acquired a clear-eyed appreciation of the harm that MB-related groups can do.

Having explained why the UAE listed CAIR on its terror manifest, we must pose a second question: Is the listing warranted? Can a Washington-based organization with ties to the Obama White House, the U.S. Congress, leading media outlets, and prestigious universities truly be an instigator of terrorism?

 

CAIR can rightly be so characterized. True, it does not set off bombs but, as the UAE’s foreign minister explains, “Our threshold is quite low. … We cannot accept incitement or funding.” Indeed, CAIR incites, funds, and does much more vis-à-vis terrorism:

Apologizes for terrorist groups: Challenged repeatedly to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups, CAIR denounces the acts of violence but not their sponsors.

Is connected to Hamas: Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and many other governments, indirectly created CAIR and the two groups remain tight. Examples: in 1994, CAIR head Nihad Awad publicly declared his support for Hamas; and the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a Hamas front group, contributed $5,000 to CAIR; in turn, CAIR exploited the 9/11 attacks to raise money for HLF; and, this past August, demonstrators at a CAIR-sponsored rally in Floridaproclaimed “We are Hamas!”

 

The Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas front group, made an early $5,000 donation to CAIR to help establish it.

Settled a lawsuit: CAIR initiated a libel lawsuit in 2004 over five statements by a group called Anti-CAIR. But two years later, CAIR settled the suit with prejudice (meaning that it cannot be reopened), implicitly acknowledging the accuracy of Anti-CAIR’s assertions, which included:

  • “CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists”;
  • “CAIR … is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries”;
  • “CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists”; and
  • “CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations.”
For two years, 2004-06, CAIR sued Anti-CAIR, eventually to settle with prejudice.

Includes individuals accused of terrorism: At least seven board members or staff at CAIR have been arrested, denied entry to the US, or were indicted on or pled guilty to or were convicted of terrorist charges: Siraj Wahhaj, Bassem Khafagi, Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Rabih Haddad, Muthanna Al-Hanooti, and Nabil Sadoun.

Is in trouble with the law: Federal prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR (along with two other Islamic organizations) as “unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers” in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas financially. In 2008, the FBI ended contacts with CAIR because of concern with its continuing terrorist ties.

On learning of the UAE listing, CAIR called it “shocking and bizarre,” then got to work to have the Department of State protest and undo the ruling. Nothing loath, department spokesperson Jeff Rathke noted that the U.S. government, which “does not consider these organizations to be terrorist organizations,” has asked for more information about the UAE decision. The UAE minister of state for Foreign affairs replied that if organizations can show that their “approach has changed,” they are eligible to appeal “to have their names eliminated from the list.”

Pressure from the Obama administration might reverse the UAE listing. Even so, this will not undo its lasting damage. For the first time, an Islamist government has exposed the malign, terroristic quality of CAIR – a stigma CAIR can never escape.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

***

Also  see:

 

Qatar and Terror

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, Nov. 22, 2014:

Although outwardly more liberal than the Saudis, the Qataris have surpassed them as financiers of extremism and terrorism.

U.S. officials reckon that Qatar has now replaced Saudi Arabia as the source of the largest private donations to the Islamic State and other al-Qaeda affiliates.

Qatar, the world’s wealthiest country per capita, also has the unsavory reputation for the mistreatment and effective slavery of much of its workforce.

Leaders of Western states threatened by jihadi advances are happy to sit down with the largest financiers of terrorism in the world, offer them help, take as much money as they can, and smile for the cameras.

There is a central weakness in the coalition against the Islamic State [IS] in Syria, as pointed out by Bryan Bender in the Boston Globe. There are 62 members of the coalition, some of which are Arab states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq, and Qatar. The U.S., however, carries the greatest weight in the air campaign against the self-proclaimed Caliphate. America had carried out 3,589 sorties by August 8, its partners 8; between September 23 (when most partners joined in attacks) and November 3, U.S. sorties numbered a further 3,320, with 1,090 by other coalition members.

The U.S., therefore, flies over 75% of missions — an indication of American intent? It’s not quite that simple.

One of those partners, Qatar, seems to be committed to the mission in other ways. It hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command, and stations American and British aircraft and personnel at al-Udeid Air Base.

The U.S. Congress has authorized and appropriated many millions of dollars over the years in return for use and maintenance of this important base.[1]

Qatar is now prepared to pay in full for the U.S. military presence during the campaign in return for American protection.[2]

Except, as a recent headline in the New Republic put it: “Qatar Is a U.S. Ally. They Also Knowingly Abet Terrorism. What’s Going On?” Other views are harsher: “Qatar’s overall cooperation, however, is the worst in the region.”

Qatar is one of the world’s smallest states with a miniscule population. A Saudi prince once said that it is made up of “300 people and a TV Channel” (referring to Al Jazeera, based in the capital, Doha). Qatar has only 278,000 citizens and 1.5 million expatriates who make up 94% of the workforce. Qatar, the world’s wealthiest country per capita, also has an unsavory reputation for the mistreatment and effective slavery of much of its workforce.

Qatar is also imprisoning Matthew and Grace Huang, an American couple sentenced to three years in prison on charges of child endangerment, for allegedly murdering their adopted daughter, Gloria, 8, even though she apparently had health issues prior to the adoption. The Huangs continue to protest their innocence, and claim that the Qataris do not understand how an Asian couple could adopt three children, who happen to be black, from Africa.

Given Qatar’s economic and political clout, created by its sovereign wealth fund, its oil, and its ownership of the world’s third largest natural gas reserves, Qatar plays a role on the world stage and does much to enhance its public image. In a bid for international kudos, the emirate acted to ensure the award of the soccer World Cup for 2022, only to find itself mired in controversy.

In other spheres, Qatar is the single largest donor to the Brookings Institution, a major U.S. think tank. Payments included $14.8 million after the former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, blamed Israel for the failure of the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks; and it has given money to many universities in the U.S. and Europe.[3] Qatar also hosts eight international university campuses near Doha (Virginia Commonwealth, Weill Cornell, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, Northwestern, HEC Paris, University College London, Calgary), and finances the RAND Policy Trust. It owns expensive properties in London, the Barcelona Football Club, and dabbles in other areas worldwide.

While all this increases Qatar’s influence, most of it seems to be for show, to present an amiable face to the world. Qatar is not all gleaming towers, bars for non-Muslims, and a modern approach to sexual relations. It remains the only other Wahhabi country in the world next to Saudi Arabia. The problem here is the Qatar paradox. Although outwardly more liberal than the Saudis, the Qataris have surpassed them as financiers of extremism and terrorism. As with its neighbor, it is traditional, devoted to a highly conservative form of Islam, and an underlying commitment to Islamic values.

Although praised for its liberalism in many areas, Freedom House reported in 2013 that “civil liberties and political rights are severely restricted for residents and citizens alike, foreign workers face especially repressive conditions.” Aside from a short period between 1976 and 1988, Qatar has remained categorized as “Not Free” since 1972, and has a particularly bad reputation for its brutal treatment of poor foreign workers.

Although non-Muslims are free to worship there, Qatari law bans any form of proselytization or outward show of faith (such as crosses on churches). There are severe laws against homosexuality, adultery (technically a capital crime, with provisions for flogging and stoning), and public criticism of the regime. As of 2011, the Democracy Index describes Qatar as an “authoritarian regime” with a score of 3.18 out of ten, and it ranks 138th out of the 167 countries covered.

Nowhere is this tendency clearer than in Qatar’s support for international networks of terrorist organizations. While U.S. planes bomb outposts of ISIS from their Qatar airbase, Qatar is reputed to be sending money to ISIS, Hamas, Libyan jihadists, and others. Of course, the Qataris deny this. Standing beside German Chancellor Angela Merkel on September 27, Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani declared that, “What is happening in Iraq and Syria is extremism and such organizations are partly financed from abroad, but Qatar has never supported and will never support terrorist organizations”.

Clearly, al-Thani either knows little about the country he rules or is trying to put one over on the world. One is reminded of how, after Black September’s 1973 murders of three diplomats (two American and one Belgian) in Khartoum, the PLO “privately… threatened reprisal if the Sudanese continued to hold them [the killers] or put them on trial,” while publicly disavowing the killings.[4]

Qatar finances terrorists with one hand, while the other joins hands with the West. Above: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani in New York City on September 25, 2014. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

The fundamentalist anti-Semitic Islamic preacher, Shaykh Yusuf ‘Abd Allah al-Qaradawi, regarded by many as the leading scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been living in Qatar on and off since the 1960s, while preaching a fundamentalist and often pro-terrorist message there through his website, Islam Online, and his Shari’a and Life television show on Al Jazeera. The Qatari government has never sought to rein him in.

Qatar’s major international charity, the Qatar Charitable Society (now simply Qatar Charity) has acted as a financier and agency for terrorist outfits in several countries. It has funded al-Qaeda in Chechnya, Mali and elsewhere, was a key player in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and funded Syria’s Ahfad al-Rasul Brigade. Qatar has also financed terrorists in northern Mali operations, including Ansar Dine, alleged to be linked to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [North Africa]; and it retains contacts with (and no doubt still funds) al-Qaeda.

According to David Blair and Richard Spencer, writing for London’s Daily Telegraph, four branches of the Qatari government handle relations with armed groups in Syria and Libya. These are the Foreign and Defense Ministries, the Intelligence Agency, and the personal office [al-Diwan al-Amiri], of the Emir, who, as we have seen, flatly denies financing terrorism. The Amiri Diwan, as in Kuwait, appears in the lists of government ministries and offices.[5] Of course, Qatar does nothing directly. It prefers to use middlemen and to permit private individuals to do the work for it. Large sums are passed to middlemen in Turkey (itself no stranger to support for terrorism), and this money is used for the purchase of weapons from other countries (notably Croatia). The weapons are then transferred to rebel groups in Syria. It has also been claimed that money owed to British companies operating in Qatar has been siphoned off to Islamic State. This may require some ingenious application of the dark arts of bookkeeping, but it does provide another means of evading condemnation of the state.

One of the most obvious examples of government support for jihadi groups is that the international base of the Gazan terrorist group Hamas has been located in Doha since 2012. Khaled Mashaal, Chairman of Hamas’s Political Bureau, is reportedly living an opulent lifestyle in a five-star hotel in Doha. Qatar has given generously to Hamas. In October, Ma’mun Abu Shahla, the Palestinian Authority’s Minister of Labor, stated that the government of Qatar had given $30 million to provide staff with their first salary payments in several months, a distribution of largesse that will give half of the former Hamas government employees in Gaza their unpaid wages. This payment was arranged with Qatar by Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, despite fears of a backlash from international donor countries, including the U.S., which considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

Apart from cash advances to terrorist entities, the Qatari government seems to be directly involved in other activities, notably the shipping of planeloads of arms to Libyan jihadists. These shipments include a C-17 cargo plane carrying weaponry to a militia loyal to a warlord who had fought alongside Osama bin Laden; arms supplies to the jihadist coalition that now controls Tripoli after the launch of Operation Libya Dawn, and some $3 billion and 70 planeloads of arms to rebel forces in Syria.

Private fundraisers who coordinate donations from individual or corporate donors in Qatar are never detained or subjected to restrictions in Qatar, a privilege that means the transfer of considerable sums to al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Hamas, Jabhat al-Nusra and other Syrian Islamist groups.

The U.S. Treasury has given details of terrorist financiers operating in Qatar. The best known is ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Nu’aymi, an academic and businessman who is a key link between Qatari donors and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor of today’s Islamic State. At one time, Nu’aymi transferred $2 million per month to the organization. He has also sent around $576,000 to Abu Khalid al-Suri, al-Qaeda’s Syrian representative, and $250,000 to the Somali jihadist group, al-Shabaab.

The U.S. Treasury Department has sanctioned Nu’aymi and other Qatari financiers in recent years. U.S. officials reckon that Qatar has now replaced Saudi Arabia as the source of the largest private donations to Islamic State and other al-Qaeda affiliates. The Qatari government has taken no steps to detain or punish al-Nu’aymi or anyone else, even though Islamist politics are, in theory, illegal in Qatar.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was warned by many people, before his meeting with the Emir of Qatar, that he had to tackle the issue of Qatar’s funding of terrorism. The two men met on October 29. Here is part of the official government news briefing on the meeting:

On international affairs, they discussed the role both countries are playing in the coalition to tackle ISIL, and the importance of all countries working to tackle extremism and support to terrorist organisations. The Prime Minister welcomed the recent legislation passed in Qatar to prevent terrorist funding and looked forward to the swift implementation of these new measures. They also agreed that both countries should do more to share information on groups of concern.

Need one add that among the matters discussed by these world leaders was Qatar’s recent £20 billion investment in the U.K., and Cameron’s offer of British expertise in construction to assist the Emirate in building the 2022 World Cup events? Money talks, and in supine Western countries just coming out of a major recession, it talks very loudly. Al-Thani walked away from his meeting with Cameron covered in glory for his country’s supposed work to defeat Islamist terrorism worldwide.

Leaders of Western states threatened by jihadist advances are happy to sit down with the largest financiers of terrorism in the world, offer them help, take as much money as they can, and smile for the cameras. They then sell their publics for crumbs from oil-rich monarchs who watch, wreathed in smiles, as the West abases itself out of greed and a total lack of concern for the human rights issues that dog these sheikhdoms in almost everything they do. The Qataris have money, they have power and influence, and they have an abiding love for fundamentalist Islam. They know what they are doing and they wait for their day to come.

Denis MacEoin is a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.


[1] Here is a short list of these payments: From FY2003 to FY2007, Congress authorized and appropriated $126 million for U.S. military construction activities in Qatar. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) authorized $81.7 million in FY2008 spending to build new Air Force and Special Operations facilities in Qatar. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417) authorizes $69.6 million in FY2009 spending to build new Air Force and Special Operations facilities. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84) authorizes $117 million in FY2010 spending to build new Air Force recreational, dormitory, and other facilities at Al Udeid. The Administration’s FY2011 military construction request for Qatar was $64.3 million, for Air Force facilities and a National Security Agency warehouse. The FY2012 request includes $37 million to continue the dormitory and recreation facility project. See “Congress Appropriations and Authorizations”, in “Al-Udeid Air Base,” Wikipedia.

[2]Qatar says ready to pay ‘in full’ for US military presence: Amr Moussa,” Press TV, 1 December 2012 (accompanied by many condemnation of Qatar for doing so).

[3] For some details about its donations to the UK, see Robin Simcox, “A Degree of Influence“, London, The Centre for Social Cohesion, 2009.

[4] Joshua Muravchik, Making David into Goliath, New York, 2014, p. 49, citing David Korn.

[5] See also State of Qatar Ministry of Interior, “Ministries”.

THE JIHADIST THREAT ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER

border-partrolTerror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, Nov. 21, 2014:

With so many Jihadist threats metastasizing around the world, it’s getting tough to keep track. There are more Jihadists fighting in more countries than ever before. Here are just a few examples:

  • The Islamic State
  • HAMAS/Islamic Jihad in Israel
  • Boko Haram in west Africa
  • Al Shabaab in east Africa
  • Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
  • Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
  • Al Qaeda on the Indian Subcontinent
  • The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan
  • Lashkar e Taiba in India and Pakistan
  • Hezbollah in Lebanon
  • Jemaah Islamiyah in Malaysia and Indonesia
  • Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB)
  • Ansar al Sharia in Libya
  • Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines

Not long ago, America’s attention was focused on our porous southern border when thousands of unaccompanied minors were flooding across at an orchestrated invitation signaled by President Obama. That story seems to have been largely forgotten, except by people in border states.

Now, however, with President Obama’s unilateral executive action on illegal immigration, the border will likely come back into focus.

When the Mexican border was the top of the news, it served as a reminder that our southern border is almost completely unsecure. And there have been some reminders mixed in about the potential for a terrorist threat from south of the border, such as James O’Keefe of Project Veritas wading across the Rio Grande dressed like Osama Bin Laden.

But the Jihadist threat from south of the border is not new. It has been discussed since before 9/11. The Jihadist threat on the southern border is real and it is multifaceted.

Adolfo Aguilar Zinser

Adolfo Aguilar Zinser

 For instance in May 2001, former Mexican National security adviser and ambassador to the United Nations, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, reported, that ‘Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge.’

There is no way to estimate how many jihadists may already have crossed into the U.S. from Mexico. But the time to play politics with the border issue is long past. The shallow sloganeering and race-baiting that have dominated the national debate about border controls should be recognized as what they are: hindrances to sane and sensible national defense measures.

Read more

Also see:

CAIR, Recognized Terrorist Org., Exposed in TV Debate

Cair-Nihad-Awad-Ibrahim-Hooper-HP_11Clarion Project, BY RYAN MAURO, November 20, 2014:

A senior official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nezar Hamze, repeatedly denied the existence of Department of Justice documents tying CAIR to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamze made the remarks during a televised debate with Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro on NewsmaxTV’s “MidPoint with Ed Berliner.”

The topic of the debate was the designation of CAIR as a terrorist organization by the Muslim government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Hamze, Regional Operations Director of CAIR-Florida, argued that there’s no evidence that CAIR is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas and is a moderate organization. Yet he failed to answer the charge of CAIR being a terrorist organization.

Mauro argued that documents provided by the Justice Department establish a firm connection between CAIR and the internationally designated terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood and brought forward those documents as proof.

You can watch the debate below:

 

CAIR Denies Existence of Publicly-Available Evidence

The most remarkable feature of the discussion was that Hamze repeatedly denied the existence of quotes by federal prosecutors about the CAIR-Brotherhood connection, even after those quotes were read aloud and the documents were shown to the audience. All of these documents are publicly available online.

Mauro opened the discussion by reading an exact quote from federal prosecutors in a court filing that states:

From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.

Hamze’s response was that the quote does not exist. He said, “No U.S. government or U.S. prosecutor has ever said that CAIR has any ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

When Mauro referenced U.S. government documents, Hamze again said this evidence does not exist.

He accused CAIR’s critics of making things up out of thin air. He claimed, “Their evidence is very well-documented by themselves. They create it; they regurgitate it; they put it out on the Internet and it’s fantastical… In reality, it’s just a bunch of propaganda.”

Mauro pointed out that the Justice Department’s list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial explicitly lists CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. He even showed the document to the audience. CAIR is listed in the third section of the document on page 5 (line 11).

Hamze — yet again — said no such documentation exists. He rebutted, “It doesn’t say anything like that.”

CAIR Dismisses Muslim Brotherhood Documents

Mauro also showed a 1994 Muslim Brotherhood document discussing how to “develop [the] work of” CAIR, mentioning it by name.

Hamze’s rebuttal was, “We have nothing to do with the production of that document and Ryan knows that.”

He was responding to an accusation that was never made. The argument was that the Muslim Brotherhood wrote the document and it proves a link to CAIR; not that CAIR produced it.

CAIR Denies Prosecution of Its Officials

Hamze said, “No CAIR leader, no CAIR organization, no CAIR chapter, has ever been charged with a crime.”

This is patently false. There are at least four convicted CAIR officials:

  • Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas (sentenced to 65 years in prison for terror-related charges in Holy Land Foundation trial)
  • Randall (Ismail) Royer, a CAIR communications specialist (sentenced to 20 years for aiding and abetting other terrorists in gaining access to a training camp in Pakistan)
  • Bassem Khafagi, CAIR director of community relations (sentenced to 10 months in prison for bank and visa fraud).
  • Muthanna Al-Hanooti, CAIR-Michigan executive director (sentenced to 1 year in prison for attempting to buy oil from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq while it was under sanctions)

In 2011, it was reported that CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad was nearly indicted. Serious questions are also being asked about foreign donations to CAIR and possible money laundering. This list does not include fundraisers who have been indicted or deported, such as Mohammad El-Mezain who raised over $100,000 for CAIR-NY.

Keep in mind, the core issue isn’t illegal activity. It is CAIR’s legal activity in support of the Islamist ideological cause.

The evidence introduced in the Holy Land Foundation suggests CAIR was established to support the Islamist agenda through influencing the media, governmental officials and public policy. It may not be a revenue stream for Hamas, as one of the purposes of the Holy Land Foundation was, but CAIR is still part of the Muslim Brotherhood network.

CAIR Claims Unindicted Co-Conspirator Listing Means Nothing

Hamze dismissed the list of unindicted co-conspirators as being just a “list of names” and “just a blatant list of things.” Being listed by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror financing trial doesn’t happen to just anyone. The designations happen for a reason.

An unindicted co-conspirator is defined as a “person who is identified by a law enforcement officer to have engaged in a conspiracy, but who is not charged in the indictment charging that person’s fellow conspirators.”

CAIR was included because of its involvement in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to support Hamas, which one main component – the Holy Land Foundation – was successfully prosecuted for.

What CAIR Didn’t Tell You About the Judge’s Ruling in 2009

Hamze correctly states that a federal judge ruled in 2009 that the Justice Department should not have made the list of unindicted co-conspirators public. What he chose not to mention is that the judge upheld the designation, ruling that the government provided “ample evidence” to justify it.

He also claimed that CAIR was not given an opportunity to challenge the designation. This was true of the Holy Land Foundation, hence the 2009 ruling. However, CAIR was given the opportunity to defend itself to Judge Solis and it failed.

CAIR Says It Shouldn’t Be Held Responsible for CAIR’s Actions

Hamze distanced himself from CAIR’s national leadership and other chapter leaders by describing it as a “federation of chapters” and saying he does not report to the Executive-Director.

CAIR chapters register independently, but Hamze’s organization wouldn’t be called CAIR-FL if it wasn’t a part of CAIR. If his chapter doesn’t reflect CAIR, then it wouldn’t have been honored with the2013 CAIR Chapter of the Year Award.

The deceptive registering of independent front groups was discussed by CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad during a 1993 Brotherhood/Hamas meeting that was wiretapped by the FBI. He was recorded saying, “Registering an organization is easy. I can register 100 organizations in 100 cities in one day.”

And even if CAIR-FL were independent, it has its own radical history. For example, in June, CAIR-Tampa leader Hassan Shibly said, “Nationalism was pumped into Muslim communities to divide us to weaken Islam which united us.” You can read more about his history here.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the actions of senior CAIR officials do not reflect the entire organization. If a senior CAIR official like Hamze genuinely objects to CAIR’s conduct, he can leave.

Throughout the debate Hamze was unable to answer the charges levied against his organization, namely that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a designated terrorist organization listed alongside Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He could not refute that it forms part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of affiliated organizations dedicated to furthering to cause of the international Muslim Brotherhood’s totalitarian Islamist goals.

***

Poole tweet

 

PPoole tweet

 

Also see:

Who let CAIR off the hook in the first place?

CAIRdiorama32 (1)WND, By ERIK RUSH:

As was widely reported this week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society were recently designated as terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates. The two American groups were named alongside ISIS, al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood branches in a list numbering 83 Islamist groups.

CAIR, which claims to be a mainstream “religious community service organization,” is widely known to be a terror sponsor and a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – itself the wellspring from which all global Sunni Muslim terror organizations flow. They were named by federal prosecutors in 2007 as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas funding case connected with the Holy Land Foundation trial. Hamas has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 2007.

If you’re thinking that the Muslim UAE’s designation of CAIR as a terrorist organization speaks volumes vis-à-vis the group’s geopolitical toxicity, you’re quite right. CAIR was also one of the organizations that sponsored the first Muslim prayer service held at the Washington National Cathedral last Friday, by the way.

Earlier this week, it was also revealed that CAIR is spearheading efforts to exacerbate racial tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, by using social media to advance the claim that Michael Brown (the black teenager who was shot and killed by a police officer in August) and Luqman Ameen Abdullah (a Muslim activist shot during an FBI raid in 2009) were victims of racist police targeting blacks. According to federal prosecutors, Abdullah was a radical Islamist intent upon overthrowing the U.S. government.

In July of 2009, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis supported CAIR’s request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. While Solis is often portrayed as having been critical of CAIR (sometimes even being credited with publicly outing the CAIR-Hamas connection), the fact that he essentially acted on the organization’s behalf is evident in his order.

Then, in October of 2010, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Justice Department had violated the Fifth Amendment rights of CAIR and another Muslim advocacy organization by including them on the publicly filed co-conspirator list in the case.

The pressing question here is how the government got from the firm belief in CAIR as a terror supporter to practically being an advocate for their so-called civil rights.

I believe it is high time we expose the irresponsibility, incompetence and/or corruption in such instances – no matter where the trail leads. It isn’t enough for Americans to be outraged time and again at the fact that our courts and government officials pay inordinate deference to malignant, subversive organizations and let it go at that.

Judges are, of course, quite adept at crafting their rulings, opinions and orders to appear legally iron clad and rhetorically cogent, even if their premises are dramatically flawed. In the interest of expedience, we won’t attempt to unravel those right now.

In the interest of accountability and future reference, however, we can look at the justices involved in this case.

Jorge Solis of the 5th Circuit Court is a George H.W. Bush appointee. Appeals Court Judges Emilio Garza, Fortunato Benavides and Marcia Crone entered the 2010 opinion. Garza, who wrote the opinion, is also a George H.W. Bush appointee. Justice Benavides was appointed to the court by Bill Clinton, and Crone by George W. Bush.

These things considered, while the DOJ may be accused of letting cases against terror facilitators unravel under the Obama administration, it is difficult to make the accusation of the justices engaging in the sort of left-wing, sympathist activism we have seen on the part of federal judges in recent years.

On the other hand, it would not be the first time that even mainstream government officials (including judges, who have political allegiances even though they’re not supposed to) insisted upon treating suspect individuals, governments, or organizations as legitimate, law-abiding contemporaries. This, of course, lends credence to the argument (some claim “conspiracy theory”) that militant Islamic organizations are being deftly manipulated by globalists against America in their own bid for supremacy.

Whatever the case, Americans need to realize that Islam is bad news, and it has been for 1,400 years. There are fewer examples more illustrative of this right now than CAIR. You don’t negotiate, let alone fraternize, with someone whose stated goal is your utter subjugation, and you certainly don’t take their words at face value when lying is actually enshrined as part of their creed.

We need a revival of nationalism in America – not a poisonous “My country, right or wrong” nationalism, but one wherein there is a resurgence of the common belief that there’s nothing wrong with placing our interests first. It is those who advance the notion – subliminally or otherwise – that “America sucks” who need to be driven from the arena of public debate.

First Amendment protections have never superseded national survival; thus First Amendment arguments ought not shield the subversives among us now, whether individuals or organizations.

To this end, we cannot afford to countenance the effete, would-be princes of global governance within the ranks of our government officials or captains of industry, those who are willing to empower primitive, misogynistic pedophiles, regardless of the supposed political or economic advantages. Neither can we afford dunderheads on the federal judiciary who are either corrupt or too short-sighted to know they are being played by the aforementioned parties. Federal judges can be impeached.

Neither globalists nor Islamists would have any sway whatsoever over the American people or our political process if we merely held our public officials accountable and adhered to the Constitution. If a substantial number of Americans decide not to participate in these civic duties, the rest of us can take up the slack.

Media wishing to interview Erik Rush, please contact media@wnd.com.

Also see:

In a written statement, CAIR correctly noted the ruling concluded that the U.S. government violated the rights of Muslim Americans when it made its list of un-indicted co-conspirators public. The list, in addition to containing CAIR’s name, also included the Islamist Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

However, CAIR failed to mention that the court declined “to strike CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s names from those documents.” “Maintaining the names of the entities on the List is appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the Government,” ruled U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis.

Solis affirmed that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.”

As an example of evidence that established these ties, the ruling cited a 1994 Palestine Committee memo naming CAIR and other groups as “working organizations for the Palestine Committee.” According to internal documents submitted as evidence in the 2008 terror financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the Muslim Brotherhood created the Palestine Committee with a “designed purpose to support HAMAS” politically and financially.

Ryan Mauro Debates CAIR: Is CAIR Linked to Muslim Brotherhood?

Published on Nov 19, 2014 by Ryan Mauro

Clarion Project national security analyst Ryan Mauro debates Nezar Hamze of CAIR-Florida about whether the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas following the United Arab Emirates’ designation of CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist groups.

Once CAIR Supporters, U.A.E. Declares Them Terrorists

United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum inspects a guard of honor during a 2007 visit to India. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan, File)

United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum inspects a guard of honor during a 2007 visit to India. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan, File)

CSP, by Kyle Shideler:

The United Arab Emirates has officially designated a list of over 80 organizations as terrorist groups. The list includes a large cross section of organizations connected to the Global Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Brotherhood organizations in the Middle East, Europe and North America, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

While CAIR professed themselves “shocked” by the designation, the reality is that the group’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be legitimately disputed.

CAIR is listed as an organization of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America’s Palestine Committee, in a 1994 meeting agenda submitted as evidence during the Holy Land Foundation Trial. The stated purpose of the Palestine Committee is to support the terrorist group Hamas, with quote “media, money, men and all that,” according to a 1992 internal memo also submitted at the HLF trial.

Judge Jorge Solis, the federal judge in the case, stated that the government had supplied “ample evidence” of CAIR’s links to the Palestine Committee and Hamas.

CAIR executive director Nihad Awad, and its founding Chairman Omar Ahmad were both present at a 1993 meeting of the Palestine Committee in Philadelphia, where FBI surveillance audio revealed a plan to create a new organization to conduct media activities on behalf of Hamas. That organization was CAIR. The FBI formally cut ties with CAIR over these connections, while other U.S. government agencies have refused to do the same. Regarding the UAE’s terror designation, The State Department says it is “engaging the UAE on the issue.”

The irony is that the UAE has itself supported Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, at least regarding their activities in the United States.

A Deed of Trust recorded in 2002 indicated that the Dubai-based Al Maktoum Foundation had provided nearly a million dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood-linked group. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Deputy Ruler of Dubai and UAE Minister of Finance and Industry, agreed to a proposal to build a property to serve as an endowment for CAIR.

In 2009, the U.S. took an increasingly pro-Islamist stance towards the revolutions of the Arab Spring thanks in part to the success of influence operations conducted by U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups. The result was early Muslim Brotherhood victories in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen. In 2010 U.A.E security forces arrested local Brotherhood operatives for allegedly forming a “military wing,” and expelled Egyptian and Syrian MB members from the country. UAE security forces stated that the Muslim Brotherhood sought to overthrow the Emirates as part of a wider plot by the Brotherhood to seize control of oil-producing Gulf States.

With Brotherhood groups preparing to target their rule, the Emirates appear to realize they badly miscalculated in their support for groups like CAIR, as U.S. policy came unmoored from it’s traditional support for the Gulf states and more in favor of Islamist opposition groups. In 2012, Dubai’s chief of police warned that U.S. policy had turned towards supporting revolutions in the Middle East, and that Muslim Brotherhood had turned against the Gulf States.

While the U.A.E’s decision to list CAIR as a terror group may be ultimate self-serving that doesn’t change the reality that it’s supported by the facts.

It’s well past time the U.S. followed suit.

 

Also see:

The New Global Terrorism Index: Sharif Won’t Like It

Dr. Timothy R. Furnish

Dr. Timothy R. Furnish

Mahdi Watch, by Dr. Timothy R. Furnish:

Two new reports on terrorism have been released in the last week:  one by the government of the United Arab Emirates; another by the Institute for Economics & Peace, called the “Global Terrorism Index.”  Both are worthy of scrutiny—particularly the latter.

The UAE Council of Ministers disseminated a list of 83 terrorist organizations.  Most notably, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as well as the Muslim American Society (MAS), are included as terroristic by the UAE.  All 83 (not 82, as some outlets have reported) such groups identitied by that Sunni nation’s Council of Ministers are ones that openly claim to be Islamic; whether they simply chose to deal solely with Islamic entities, or did not deem non-Muslim terrorist organizations worthy of enumerating, is not clear from the article.  Perhaps the most striking aspect of this UAE list is that it contains almost twice as many groups as does the US State Department one on foreign terrorism—including many I had never heard of (and I worked directly from their Arabic list).  Does this mean that that small Gulf country has better intelligence on the topic than the US?  Or that UAE’s threshold for what constitutes a terrorist group is lower  (smaller number of members, for example) than the US government’s?  It’s also quite interesting that this list includes not just the usual suspects—al-Qa`idah [AQ], ISIS (“Da`ish”), the Taliban, Boko Haram [BH]—but the Muslim Brotherhood and various and sundry European Islamist organizations (the Union of Muslim Ulama and the various Islamic societies in Britain, Germany and the Scandinavian countries).  According to outgoing US Attorney General Eric Holder’s standards, then, the UAE government must be racist and Islamophobic.

The GTI is not just a listing but an in-depth, 94-pp. analysis of terrrorism from 2000 to 2013.  Some of its major findings have already been reported:  terrorist-caused deaths increased 60% in 2013 over the previous year;  four groups—Taliban, AQ, ISIS and BH—caused most of those; and “extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam are the key commonality to all four groups.”

Terroristideologytrendsjpeg

But there is much more data besides that found by journalists in the executive summary.  When this millennium began, nationalist/separatist-based violence was the planet’s primary form of terrorism; but starting on 9/11 that was surpassed by the religious-based (Islamic, that is) kind, and the trend has accelerated in recent years.

The rest of the top ten most deadly terrorist groups for the period 2000-2013,  after the Taliban, AQ, ISIS and BH, are: Indian Maoists, Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army, the Tamil Tigers, Somalia’s al-Shabab, Colombia’s Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia or FARC, and the Chechen Islamic “rebels.”  The countries most bedeviled by terrorism are, in order: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria, India, Somalia, Yemen, the Philippines and Thailand.

Deathbyterroristgrouptrends2000to2013jpeg.jpg.w560h326

Suicide attacks made up only 5% of the fatalities during those 14 years—but that represents some 2,500 individuals killed.  And suicide attack-by-explosive was the most lethal form of terrrorist violence, taking out, on average, 11 people—whereas all other types of terrorist attacks (mostly firearms) averaged only two fatalities. Ninety percent of suicide attacks occurred in MENA (Middle East & North Africa) and South Asia; no surprise there, as polling data consistently shows substantial Muslim public support for  suicide bombing.  The groups most responsible for suicide attacks were: AQ, Tehrik-i-Taliban (Pakistan), ISIS, Hamas (though none since 2008), al-Shabab and BH.  

While homicide is still a far greater threat to individuals in many countries than terrorism, the GTI study also empirically lays out the indirect toll of terrorism: “increased costs of security, military expenditures and insurance often outweigh the original attacks. Further, [they] increase uncertainty in the market, decrease foreign investment, alter trade and change consumption and savings behaviour” (p. 43).  

One of the most trenchant points herein, made several times, is that poverty does not cause terrorism—or as the study puts it, more academically, “there is no systematic link to poverty measures….Similarly, economic measures such as GDP growth also do not correlate “ (p. 59).  The closest correlations with terrorism are lack of political stability; intergroup cohesion and “group grievances;” and the (il)legitimacy of the state.  

Between 1968 and 2006 (drawing on a RAND study),  the most likely way for a terrorist movement to come to an end was by incorporation into the political process (43% did so in such fashion); second was via “policing” (40%); 10% of terrorist organizations actually triumphed; and only 7% were defeated solely by military force.   GTI, however, does not really explain the differences between “policing” and “military force.”  And the period examined in this section was one in which many 1960s nationalist and Leftist/Anarchist groups met their demise—whereas the vast majority of the groups since 2000 are religious (Islamic, to be honest) and the authors admit that “groups with an international focus and a religious orientation…are more likely to continue operating, increase in size, and need military intervention to stop them” (p. 56).  

Observations:
1
) Poverty does not cause terrorism.  Someone please alert “The Economist” and BBC,  much of the US media, and most of the modern Democrat party.
2) GTI makes one major mistake: the Taliban are motivated by Deobandi Islam, not the Wahhabi brand;  South Asian Deobandism developed entirely separately from Arabian Wahhabism, although they resemble one another now insofar as both are manifestations of literalist, fundamentalist Sunni Islam.
3) There is only one Christian terrorist group on GTI’s list: the Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda.  Accepting arguendo that LRA is Christian—so as to maintain intellectual consistency with labeling groups that claim to be representing Islam as such—there are still major differences between it and Islamic terrorist ones: practically every Christian in the world condemns it (which is not the case with Muslims and Islamic terrorism); and the LRA stands alone in this study as “Christianist” terrorism (unlike the dozens—or 83—Islamist terror entities).
4) The world’s foremost terrorism stage is Iraq, which saw over 6,000 deaths from such in 2013.  And as much as it pains me to say it, the United States is the major reason for the unleashing of the Islamic terrorist “genie” (jinn) in that country.  There were plenty of problems under Saddam Husayn’s brutal reign—but widespread terrorist fatalities were not one of them.  Afghanistan, with over 3,000 fatalities, is second.  At least with that country the US had a good reason to invade: to take out the staging area, and enablers of, the 9/11 attacks.   But in both Iraq and Afghanistan the proximate cause for rampant terrorism is American destruction of previously-existing political systems—although, of course, the ultimate reason for Islamic terrorism in both countries is, well, Islam itself.
5) Oh, and did I mention that, once again, we have empirical data that poverty does not cause terrorism?

Medieval Muslim terrorists--the Isma'ili Shi`i "Assassins"--whacking the Seljuq Turkish ruler Nizam al-Mulk in 1092 AD.  (No, the Isma'ilis were not poor!)

Medieval Muslim terrorists–the Isma’ili Shi`i “Assassins”–whacking the Seljuq Turkish ruler Nizam al-Mulk in 1092 AD. (No, the Isma’ilis were not poor!)

Global Terrorism Index Report

Global-Terrorism-IndexVision of Humanity:

The number of terrorist attacks around the world has increased dramatically; over 80% of all terrorism occurs in only 5 countries. Get the facts on terrorism.

Terrorism has become a global phenomenon with a 61% increase in the number of people killed in terrorist attacks over the last year. The 2014 Global Terrorism Index provides a fact-based understanding of terrorism and its impact.

Explore the interactive Global Terrorism Index map

KEY FACTS:

  • 17,958 people were killed in terrorist attacks last year, that’s 61% more than the previous year.
  • 82% of all deaths from terrorist attack occur in just 5 countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.
  • Last year terrorism was dominated by four groups: the Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIL, and al Qa’ida.
  • More than 90% of all terrorist attacks occur in countries that have gross human rights violations.
  • 40 times more people are killed by homicides than terrorist attacks.

RESULTS:

Iraq is the country most impacted by terrorism; last year there were 2,492 terrorist attacks in Iraq which killed 6,362 people.

In 2013, 24 countries experienced terrorist attacks that killed more than 50 people. There were 75 countries that did not experience a terrorist attack.

 

QUOTE:

“Terrorism doesn’t arise on its own; by identifying the factors associated with it, long term policies can be implemented to improve the underlying environment that nurtures terrorism. The most significant actions that can be taken are to reduce state-sponsored violence, reduce group grievances and hostilities, and improve effective and community-supported policing.”Steve Killelea

TERRORIST GROUPS AND TARGETS

In 2013, 66% of all fatalities from claimed terrorist attacks were caused by four terrorist groups: the Taliban, Boko Haram , ISIL and al-Qa’ida. The primary targets of terrorist attacks are citizens and private property.

CAUSES OF TERRORISM

The three main factors associated with terrorism are state sponsored violence such as extra-judicial killings, group grievances and high levels of criminality. Poverty rates, levels of schools attendance and most economic factors have no association with terrorism. Most terrorist attacks use explosives; since 2000 only 5% were suicide attacks.

HOW TERRORIST GROUPS END

Since the 1960s, 83% of terrorist organisations that ended, ceased to operate due to policing or politicisation. Only 7% ended due to military intervention.

TERRORISM IN CONTEXT

Although terrorism is on the increase and a major concern compared to other forms of violence, it is relatively small when compared to the 437,000 people killed by homicide in 2013. In the US an individual is 64 times more likely to be victim of a homicide than terrorism.

DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

The definition of terrorism used by the Global Terrorism Index is: “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation”.

ABOUT THE GLOBAL TERRORISM INDEX

The Global Terrorism Index, produced by Institute for Economics & Peace, ranks countries according the impact of terrorist activities as well as analysing the economic and social dimensions associated with terrorism.

The index scores 162 countries, covering 99.6% of the world’s population, and examines trends from 2000 to 2013. The indicators used include the number of terrorist incidents, fatalities, injuries and property damage.

Explore the full methodology, including the indicators, the source and more on page 85 of the Global Terrorism Index Report.